Who is Sam Duncan and why does he think I stole his milk money?

The sixth law of cyber-dynamics is: on any blog with unmoderated comment threads, there will be no correlation between those who regularly post comments and those who actually have something worthwhile to say. Weinberg's "safe space" philosophy blog suffers from several regular commenters who illustrate this law, but the only one who interests me today is the character known as "Sam Duncan." I don't know Mr. Duncan, don't know who he is, don't even know if it's his real name, although it appears to be (I am told it is this guy, but if it's not, he should tell me [UPDATE: He's now here.). But Mr. Duncan, judging from his obsessive comments, seems to think I took his milk money and he's very mad about it. I swear I didn't!

In his latest appearance (prompted, it appears, by this), Mr. Duncan borrows a meme from the dishonest weasel Ichikawa: "When someone who threatens to sue people whenever they say anything that threatens his incredibly fragile ego casts himself as a tireless crusader for free speech and free thought, then I think we ought to just laugh." I infer Mr. Duncan thinks this description refers to me and that it identifies an inconsistency. He is, alas, mistaken. Let's try to make this simple for the intellectually and emotionally challenged:

1. Every sensible, principled defense of academic freedom and/or free speech recognizes that some things academics say can be regulated or prohibited, and some things non-academics say can be regulated or prohibited. In the former case, this would include, e.g., academics using class time to pontificate about matters unrelated to their discipline. In the latter case, this would include, e.g., threats, defamation, or words constituting sexual harassment in the workplace.

2. Every legal system in the democratic world, without exception, recognizes causes of action for defamation, i.e., false statements of fact that damage someone's reptuation and that are communicated to third parties.

3. I happen to have principled (published) views about both academic freedom and free speech. I also think the law is correct to recognize cause of action for defamation. None of this is at all mysterious.

4. Many people (hundreds over the years I would guess) have made false statements of fact about me, often intending to damage my reputation: most are motivated by anger about the philosophy rankings, some are motivated by anger about my mild and uncontroversial opinions on other matters. A vanishingly small number of them (I can think of roughly a half-dozen egregious cases over the last 20-or-so years, half of which did not involve cyberspace) have been contacted by me and, more often, my lawyer regarding this defamation. In most of the cases, the defamer removed or revised their statements without legal action. In none of the cases was my ego affected: the purpose of defamation law is to protect reputations from falsehoods, not to protect egos. If my ego were fragile, it would have been shattered beyond repair long ago and I would have retreated from the public sphere.

5. Mr. Duncan has made false statements of fact about both the reasons for and the frequency with which I seek remedies for defamation, but since he's incapable of damaging my reputation with this remark, he's safe! I hereby consign him to the very large garbage heap of would-be defamers that never hear from my lawyer. Congratulations!